[討論] 懂神學不屬靈？

[df31 (DF-31)]

→ d86506: 所以呢 神學很棒就屬靈嗎？                               11/18
20:00

→ d86506: 我管反不反神學嗎？不要抓到稻草人就狂打，只覺得好笑。    11/18
20:03

*[1;31m→ *[33md86506*[m*[33m: 是弟兄姊妹你也可以用你的言語攻擊。你神學懂再多
，
*[1;31m→ *[33md86506*[m*[33m: 間的信息再認識，都小過一個初信的基督徒
。

看見這種【不懂裝大師】的，真的很吐血！

D86啊！

「我們把所有的啟示、解釋，合在一起，分析清楚，來斷定一個真理，這就是神學。正規
的神學，就是要看見聖經裏的真理。這個可以叫作教義的神學。我們這樣去讀，就能對聖
經的真理有清楚的認識。」

講這段話的人，對神學做出了一個積極正面的評價，並且主張我們可以去讀【教義的神學
】。不知道，您認為講這段話的人【屬靈】嗎？

別擔心，我跟你的人格不一樣。在您用對待我的【同樣標準】回答完後，我會提供講這段
話的人的相應資料。

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.217.129.63 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1574080858.A.E06.html
推 d86506: 你是這樣讀嗎？
怎麼，你講的話，不敢負責哦！屬靈人=不敢為自己的話負責+雙重標準？

不好意思，這種態度不是地方召會的家風！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:44:32

有種？回答啊！

我可以告訴你，這是個預備【活埋你的大坑】。別怪我，要怪？怪你自己不學無術，不動大腦，在加上品格有問題！

建議回去好好讀讀【性格30點】——不會【又】不知道這本書吧？！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:45:56
→ d86506: 雖然覺得有你這樣的家人很可恥，但你還是弟兄。
→ d86506: 如果你對真理有認識，你會輕易的批評別人1450？讓人去讀禮
→ d86506: 義廉恥？跟你不同意見的就是反中？很明顯你只有客觀的認識
→ d86506: ，沒有一點屬靈的成分在你的言語裡面。
又開始【轉移話題】了！現在跟你談神學屬不屬靈？——這是你批判我點。【扯】別的幹嘛。

人格哦！

算了，不羅嗦了！

上面那段話摘錄自：倪柝聲，倪柝聲文集第三輯第八冊——讀經之路、人的破碎與靈的出來（臺灣福音書房：
臺北 1992年12月臺灣初版），180頁。

所以，根據這位香港廢青的標準，中國基督教的屬靈人——倪柝聲是不屬靈的，而且比她還小！

阿門！

哈哈！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:50:18
→ d86506: 倪柝聲弟兄是用這樣的方式讀信息，可你不是，你連一點真理
→ d86506: 都沒有沒著，在你的文字裡，跟外邦人沒有兩樣。
哈！【雙重標準】。

不過，事實擺在這裡：我比你了解倪=我比你了解地方召會=我對香港聲明的理解肯定比你正確。

好奇問：您初中畢業了沒？！怎麼看起來，您的邏輯#！￥！￥￥#%#……￥%%
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:53:09

推 d86506: 是啊，什麼時候召會認為邏輯很重要了？
哈！你真的很【天真】誒！

隨便舉個例子吧！

【素質三一】-【經論三一】聽過吧？！

邏輯不好，搞不出來的。不然CRI怎麼會承認【我們錯了！】CRI是美國基督教最重要的護教機構，就是搞神學的。像您這種邏輯不好的，搞不了神學。所以，CRI的邏輯肯定很好。那麼，如果CRI都承認我們比他們正統，難到那不就證明我們的邏輯比CRI厲害？！

這麼簡單的邏輯都不懂哦？！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:56:03
→ pinjose: 可以了，可以了，適可而止吧
交給您吧！初生之犢～～～我要回去幹活了。:)

→ d86506: 你的文字裡面充斥著人的教訓而不是從神來到啟示與亮光，願
→ d86506: 主祝福你那一區的兒童排，不要成為像你一樣的基督徒。
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:56:49

最後告訴你一個秘密：地方召會是有【系統神學】的！那套系統神學叫做【新約總論】！

不知道？！去沙田園區吧！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:58:40
推 d86506: 謝謝弟兄。
→ david213: 踩到痛腳了吧 崩潰到狂洗文章耶
→ tfnop: 懂神學未必屬靈，聽道而不能行道如何能屬靈
→ df31: 1估計，如果我拿錘子把自己腦殼敲出一個凹洞，變成像tf一樣
→ df31: 1的屬靈人的機會就會大很多了。
→ df31: 1不過，【像您】一樣的【行道】？敬謝不敏！
→ tfnop: 示範崩潰胡言亂語嗎？
→ df31: 1哈哈！。。。。受不了了。真可憐。你這就叫【行道】哦？
→ df31: 1屬靈人也太cheap了！
→ tfnop: df大可證明聽懂神學就等於屬靈人
→ df31: 1我不會像你那麽naive和fake
補充：我很有自知之明，承認自己大肉一塊，不屬靈。
在同時TF是TJC認證的『屬靈人』，大大的屬靈，屬靈的大大，屬靈到讓人不得不承認他屬靈。


希望這樣的公開聲明，能讓TF『飛』起來！:P
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/19/2019 18:21:55
→ tfnop: 所以你不懂神學囉！因為你自己說懂神學就屬靈，我還在等你
→ tfnop: 證明這兩者是全等的
我認為，我還蠻懂神學的。:)  哈啊！

不過，事實證明，我確實『比你』懂神學。。。。。呀！耶！

→ bejoe: 吵這些真的和神無關
確實！：）
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/19/2019 20:28:12
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/19/2019 20:28:42
→ tfnop: 所以懂神學等於屬靈人的論證是什麼？
→ df31: 都是你自己的話，別賴別人身上，屬靈人！
推 springman: 以我的經驗來看，df31講別人時很可能胡說八道！
中午吃八方雲集。一份韓鍋貼，1-粒；一份紅油炒手，8粒；一碗玉米濃湯。好好吃哦！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 12:15:41
推 springman: 幾流的選民選出幾流的政府；
→ springman: 什麼樣的支持者就支持什麼樣的政客。
阿門！所以，你的話證明我們的層次是完全不一樣的！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 12:58:03
推 springman: 在胡說八道的部份就知道不一樣了。
嘴炮沒完啊！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:07:53
推 springman: 嘴炮與胡說八道的層次當然是不一樣的。
還在嘴哦！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:10:11

看懂下段講什麼嗎？

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4016.htm

Article 7. Whether this is true: "Man was made God"?
Objection 1. It would seem that this is true: "Man was made God." For it is
written (Romans 1:2-3): "Which He had promised before by His prophets in the
holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Who was made to Him of the seed of David
according to the flesh." Now Christ, as man, is of the seed of David
according to the flesh. Therefore man was made the Son of God.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 13) that "such was this
assumption, which made God man, and man God." But by reason of this
assumption this is true: "God was made man." Therefore, in like manner, this
is true: "Man was made God."

Objection 3. Further, Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. ad Chelid. ci): "God was
humanized and man was deified, or whatever else one may like to call it." Now
God is said to be humanized by being made man. Therefore with equal reason
man is said to be deified by being made God; and thus it is true that "Man
was made God."

Objection 4. Further, when it is said that "God was made man," the subject of
the making or uniting is not God, but human nature, which the word "man"
signifies. Now that seems to be the subject of the making, to which the
making is attributed. Hence "Man was made God" is truer than "God was made
man."

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): "We do not say that
man was deified, but that God was humanized." Now to be made God is the same
as to be deified. Hence this is false: "Man was made God."

I answer that, This proposition, Man was made God, may be understood in three
ways. First, so that the participle "made" absolutely determines either the
subject or the predicate; and in this sense it is false, since neither the
Man of Whom it is predicated was made, nor is God made, as will be said
(Articles 8 and 9). And in the same sense this is false: "God was made man."
But it is not of this sense that we are now speaking. Secondly, it may be so
understood that the word "made" determines the composition, with this
meaning: "Man was made God, i.e. it was brought about that Man is God." And
in this sense both are true, viz. that "Man was made God" and that "God was
made Man." But this is not the proper sense of these phrases; unless, indeed,
we are to understand that "man" has not a personal but a simple supposition.
For although "this man" was not made God, because this suppositum, viz. the
Person of the Son of God, was eternally God, yet man, speaking commonly, was
not always God. Thirdly, properly understood, this participle "made" attaches
making to man with relation to God, as the term of the making. And in this
sense, granted that the Person or hypostasis in Christ are the same as the
suppositum of God and Man, as was shown (III:2:3), this proposition is false,
because, when it is said, "Man was made God," "man" has a personal
suppositum: because, to be God is not verified of the Man in His human
nature, but in His suppositum. Now the suppositum of human nature, of Whom
"to be God" is verified, is the same as the hypostasis or Person of the Son
of God, Who was always God. Hence it cannot be said that this Man began to be
God, or is made God, or that He was made God.

But if there were a different hypostasis of God and man, so that "to be God"
was predicated of the man, and, conversely, by reason of a certain
conjunction of supposita, or of personal dignity, or of affection or
indwelling, as the Nestorians said, then with equal reason might it be said
that Man was made God, i.e. joined to God, and that God was made Man, i.e.
joined to man.

Reply to Objection 1. In these words of the Apostle the relative "Who" which
refers to the Person of the Son of God ought not to be considered as
affecting the predicate, as if someone already existing of the "seed of David
according to the flesh" was made the Son of God—and it is in this sense that
the objection takes it. But it ought to be taken as affecting the subject,
with this meaning—that the "Son of God was made to Him ('namely to the honor
of the Father,' as a gloss expounds it), being of the seed of David according
to the flesh," as if to say "the Son of God having flesh of the seed of David
to the honor of God."

Reply to Objection 2. This saying of Augustine is to be taken in the sense
that by the assumption that took place in Incarnation it was brought about
that Man is God and God is Man; and in this sense both sayings are true as
stated above.

The same is to be said in reply to the third, since to be deified is the same
as to be made God.

Reply to Objection 4. A term placed in the subject is taken materially, i.e.
for the suppositum; placed in the predicate it is taken formally, i.e. for
the nature signified. Hence when it is said that "Man was made God," the
being made is not attributed to the human nature but to the suppositum of the
human nature, Which is God from eternity, and hence it does not befit Him to
be made God. But when it is said that "God was made Man," the making is taken
to be terminated in the human nature. Hence, properly speaking, this is true:
"God was made Man," and this is false: "Man was made God"; even as if
Socrates, who was already a man, were made white, and were pointed out, this
would be true: "This man was made white today," and this would be false;
"This white thing was made man today." Nevertheless, if on the part of the
subject there is added some word signifying human nature in the abstract, it
might be taken in this way for the subject of the making, e.g. if it were
said that "human nature was made the Son of God's."

『肯定』看不懂！這就是『胡說八道』和『嘴炮』的不同！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:11:38
推 springman: 對啊！懶得看啊！果然是一樣的！
→ springman: 我一點都不屬靈，怎麼會有人說我喜歡自稱為屬靈人呢！
『反智』+『反神學』。。。。哈哈～
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:20:09
推 springman: 你這話也是習慣性說說沒根據的話、胡說八道而已。
哦！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:37:50
推 springman: 嗯、算是有病識感，還不錯！
啊！
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 14:01:50
推 NewCop: 明眼人都看得出df的伎倆：用極差的表達能力東拉西扯，再將
→ NewCop: 大量與討論毫無相關的內容複製貼上
推 NewCop: 其他人看得一頭霧水，不知道他在胡言亂語什麼，而df自己則
→ NewCop: 用精神勝利法催眠自己說其他人都是理解能力不夠、生命不
→ NewCop: 夠、不夠屬靈，然後沾沾自喜
推 NewCop: 不過幸運的是召會本身可以讓他轉貼的優質著作的確不少，
→ NewCop: 所以他整天複製貼上，還能製造出一副很懂的假象
→ NewCop: 但是實際上討論時可以發現，那些文章好歸好，常常會跟df
→ NewCop: 的論點無關甚至相反
→ NewCop: 然後df就會又沾沾自喜地說別人不懂教會，不夠屬靈
→ NewCop: 更正，不懂召會
推 NewCop: df說對了一件事，他的確跟板上很多人層次不同
→ NewCop: 只不過這樣的說法，就像一個廚藝低劣的路邊攤老闆，跑到一
→ NewCop: 群米其林三星廚師之間，大喊說自己層次和他們不同一般
→ NewCop: 雖是事實，但未免引人發笑
推 springman: 看來您觀察比較深入，我只能了解自己有參與的部份而已
→ df31: 1哦！哦！哦！
推 windcanblow: 都上年紀的人了，政治傾向跟立場還是斟酌點
→ windcanblow: 反正活到這把年紀也該知道誰也說服不了你
→ windcanblow: 你也沒啥超能力可以感化其他人
哇哇哇！你沒政治立場哦！別踩紅線。
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 17:43:48
→ charatible: 看自己跟神的關係怎麼樣，神學什麼的...有比較重要嗎?
異端就是腦子不清楚，把神學搞錯了。跟與神的關係再好，也是三鎮出局。


推 windcanblow: 踩線被警告的人少在哇哇哇了，這次就你自己忍不住啊
→ windcanblow: 反正你這次灑潑下去大概元氣大傷，要多發點長文了
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.138.137 臺灣), 11/21/2019 12:40:04
→ Viviak: 懂神學有屬靈的也有不屬靈的 但驕傲的肯定是後者